The only way out for him is to find a mechanism that allows him to save face. He has to be able to say that he has met his objectives, which he plainly hasn't. Yet.
I honestly can’t now see any way that Putin can save face. So unfortunately he will throw more military forces into the fight. And make increasing threats against “the West”.
I wonder whether there is the opportunity to provide fresh fighter jets to Ukrainian pilots? In the battle of Britain it was quite usual to get shot down one day, then get a fresh plane and rejoin battle after recovering. This is the advantage of the battles mostly being over the homeland rather than in enemy territory where you would more likely be taken prisoner and "the war for you is over".
The USA has huge boneyards full of surplus F16s and other fairly contemporary planes. Why can't these be supplied to, say, Poland, where the Ukrainian pilots could take a train to collect them and literally fly them straight into battle?
It’s already been discussed about pilot training being needed, and this taking up too much time.
The second problem is that surplus aircraft that are in long term storage are not kept in a ready for action state. Often critical parts are removed (either for use elsewhere or to be stored separately). And they get very minimal maintenance if indeed they get any at all.
So rather a lot of work may be needed to bring them back to an operational state. Which again requires time.
However, what could be done, is the same as what the Russians have done in the past. Take existing operational aircraft from NATO member countries, repaint them in Ukrainian livery, but use our existing trained pilots (volunteers) to fly them. Officially they would then be flying as part of the Ukrainian airforce.
Similarly, we could do the same with some of our (the West’s) drones.
In Russia, it was a Communist member of the Duma (yes, there are some opposition members) who called for an end to the invasion. Yet, in the West, the left tend to excuse Russia for anything although it is no longer a Communist state. I feel that Jeremy Corbyn just doesn't like Britain - we are always in the wrong.
I think you are a bit confused and making generalisations. What the extreme left think, I don’t know. But the vast majority of normal people on the left are against war and against the actions of Putin. Do you really think that Putin would put up with unions? Do you really think that the left are happy with ordinary working people dying? Do you think the left are happy with the suffering of ordinary people anywhere in the world? No the left are against aggression and unnecessary war (by that I mean countries that start wars).
And follow the lead of Canada - reduce or completely cut off the import of oil and gas from Russia until they withdraw from Ukraine. It will be painful but between unconventional sources (read fracking), pushing through a new Iran nuclear deal and a real investment in renewables it is entirely possible that Western countries could be largely able to survive without Russian petro by this time next year.
I agree 100% that European countries should do everything they can to reduce their reliance on gas, oil and other petroleum or oil derived products from Russia. Even if it means encouraging the other oil and gas producing countries to temporarily increase their production. Longer term, European countries have to do everything they can to reduce energy use (super insulating buildings) and use other, non fossil fuels. Ideally by using renewable energy sources.
However, fracking is not the answer. Environmentally it’s not a good idea. And in practical terms, it takes a long time from exploring a potential source of oil to actually being able to pump oil out of the ground.
They seem to have had success with turkish drone in that regard though whether theres any left ive no idea, I was reading up on the capabilities of modern stingers last night and they were quite impressive - real world will reduce their effectiveness a lot over 'brochure specs' i'd imagine but for 30kg of equipment they can be quite potent
It would be good if the countries that are supporting Ukraine could get more drones for them.
We (NATO and the EU) have given financial and military aid to Ukraine and you can be 100% sure that we're providing all the intelligence that we have. We have agreed to take in refugees, no questions asked. There are rumours that we have small numbers of special forces on the ground.
If we take as given that we do not want an all-out war with Russia, what more can we do?
It's slightly stark how many people are advocating for a 'No-Fly Zone' over Ukraine, when we all know full well what would happen as a result.
These people either don't know the consequences of a no-fly zone, as it does mean a direct conflict with Russia. People advocating clearly don't realise how serious it would be.
Aka, we'd be down s*** creek without a paddle, and said creek leads to a high waterfall.
I do think it is time to grant the Ukrainians request for a no-fly zone over their country. The imposition of such a thing does not create war with Russia. Rather it would be the flouting of such a zone by Russian planes that causes them to come into conflict with NATO. Takes two to tango.
No, it is a very good metaphor. Who cares who’s fault it is, ultimately everyone will end up on fire? You seem to think that Russia would see that enforcement of a no-fly zone (by NATO) as not justifying an escalation into full Russia-NATO conflict. Consider that at this point, Russia sees Ukraine as its own territory, hence the invasion. From their perspective, NATO would be enforcing a no fly zone over part of Russia’s own airspace, which would be deemed unacceptable and an act of war.
I think, from a neutral/pragmatic sense, a partitioned Ukraine (perhaps with the western part accepted into the EU, but never into NATO) and a heavy build up of conventional defensive forces in Poland etc to deter any future Russian expansionism is the best that Ukraine can seriously hope for at this point. It’s **** for the Ukrainian population, but at some point their leadership will have to accept that Russian seizure of part of their land area will be unfixable militarily and that Ukraine is sadly not worth starting WW3 over. The West should have taken this action in 2014 after Crimea and therefore perhaps Kyiv would not (inevitably imo) be about to fall. Weak Western leadership (I’m looking at you TRUMP) over the last 8 years is the underlying reason Putin has been so emboldened.
Fair enough - so what do you give him in these talks?
You could suggest the above, no NATO, split Ukraine up and you might get something. You might get your peace. Until the next time they're not happy and that's the question
Calling for a no fly zone is incredibly naive and taking a far too simplistic view on the war. Its not as simple as just shooting down Russian planes and everything is sorted. For one attempting a no fly zone will just add to carnage there already is.
And Russia are not just going to say "You beat us fair and square. We're going home now". There is absolutely no action too merciless for Putin. Do not think he wouldn't use nuclear weapons. As Nato would have declared war on Russia, it would enable Russia to spread the conflict to several other countries as well.
Additionally there is no telling what China would do if NATO were the aggressor here. World trade would be massively disrupted and we would likely face severe shortages of plenty of supplies. Severe cyber attacks would be rife.
This is not like a video game. This is very different to 1944.
That's rather speculative, and I'm pretty sure your statement, "Nato would have declared war on Russia" is not correct. If, hypothetically, NATO (or some NATO countries) imposed a no-fly-zone in Ukraine, then we would not by any stretch of the imagination be attacking Russian territory. We'd simply be defending an independent country that (presumably) has asked us and authorized us to be on their territory. We could, if we wished, intervene in Ukraine while making it clear that our intervention is strictly confined to Ukrainian territory and will not involve any military action outside Ukraine or in any location where it's not authorized by the leigitimate Government of that location.
Of course, we don't know how Russia would respond in that situation. But realistically, whatever we do carries considerable risk. Not doing anything carries risk of its own - namely that an emboldened and strengthened Russia decides to carry on empire-building beyond Ukraine.
How on Earth would our defending a country that has asked us to defend them amount to our being 'the aggressor'?
If Putin at least partly gets his own way whats to stop him wanting more?
It depends what his exact motives are. What NATO and EU need to ensure is that they don’t inadvertently create fresh incentives for more aggressive expansion.
I'm not sure the 'incentives' are the problem, it's more the opportunity. Putin has made no secret of his desire to aggressively expand and his contempt for democracy. IMO the problem is, because NATO looked weak and unwilling to respond to previous aggression, Putin sensed the opportunity. The lesson is that, if we want to avoid war, as long as people like Putin are around, we should never again wind down our defences and start looking like we're weak and don't have the stomach for a fight.
Unfortunately, while warfare and the map of the World have changed, the nature of expansionist autocrats has not changed, nor the principle that, usually, the more you appease them, the more they tend to come for more, which means that appeasing them will often lead to a bigger war than the one you were trying to avoid
We've spent the last 20 years increasing the risk of nuclear conflict by continually appeasing Putin and allowing his regime to become more and more powerful unchecked on the basis that we don't want to risk escalation, all the while running down our own defences. Maybe it's time we stopped continually doing the same thing and expecting different results this time, eh? (To be fair, things are changing now, just it seems not fast enough for us to be willing to step in and properly defend Ukraine).
To my mind, that's exactly the point. By continually refusing to get directly involved because we fear Putin might escalate, we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated in exactly the same way that he has been manipulating us for decades.
But the risk of escalation is simply too great - I don't like to say that but it is reality. We cant touch Russia. We are dealing with a nuclear armed power. That has to create a moment of pause in the debate. This isn't Serbia. We cant simply impose our will on this situation because the other power has the ability to impose theirs in an equal or greater manner. We cant risk tit a for tat journey up the escalatory ladder towards nuclear destruction. Ukraine are not, sadly, in the NATO club.
Personally I think a no fly zone would be utterly foolish and dangerous despite those in the press/media pushing for it. Ukraine is going to be defeated despite their resistance. What comes next is the question
So what happens when a "defensive" NATO aircraft shoots down a Russian aircraft for breaching the no fly zone? I don't think the Russian would see the philosophical difference between killing their people over Ukraine or killing them in Russia! It is an escalation we cant afford. We have to be realistic here.
So there has been a lot of discussion on how the “West” are afraid of Russia’s nuclear deterrent.
The important questions are:
Do you think Putin is of sound mind and rational?
Do you think Putin is a bully?
He is almost certainly a psychopath.
Because I think that we, the “West” are being bullied here. We are scared sh!t that if we engage conventional forces with Russia, Putin will immediately launch a nuclear strike against us.
Is that what you really think?
Because if that is what we think, we may as well just tell Putin that he can have anything he wants. We will always roll over.
Personally I don’t think he will use any of his nuclear weapons against the “West”. He knows that if he did, that would be the end of Russia, the end of him, the end of his family, and the likely end of the world as far as the human population on the world is concerned. Even if some people survive, the history will not be kind to Putin, he will be remembered as the person who destroyed the world.
We have let Putin bully us too much in the past. I think it is time to stand up to him. And use VERY clear language. No messing about. We tell him that he immediately stops the fighting and withdraws all Russian military from Ukraine. We give him five hours to start a ceasefire and five days to remove his forces from Ukraine. If he fails to comply, Western airforces will agree to the Ukrainian requests for us to implement a no fly zone over all of Ukraine. We make it very clear, that if one of our aircraft encounters a Russian aircraft, that aircraft will be fired on. We also make it very clear that we are willing and ready to retaliate with our own nuclear weapons if we see any use of Russia’s nuclear weapons.
And it would not be the first time that Western forces have been in the same area as Russian forces. There have been numerous times in the past. So the Russian military and the Western military damn well know how to avoid firing at each other if that is what both sides want. So this utter rubbish that there is a significant risk of an accidental incident causing a nuclear world war is very unlikely.
Trying to appease a bully or a psychopath just does not work.
EVER.
As to the suggestions that we have to give him something, such as let Ukraine be split up, that’s madness. Splitting up a country by force has worked so well in the past hasn’t it? The English should know this. We’ve done it many times in the past, and often the resulting conflict and upset continues to this day in many parts of the world.
Whatever is left of Ukraine in Russian hands is likely to continue to be a conflict zone, as I don’t see the Ukrainians ever accepting this arrangement. So that’s not an option.
Similarly, Ukraine is a democratic country. What right do we have to tell them to give themselves up to Russia? What right do we have to agree anything on their behalf?
If they want to join the EU or they want to join NATO and meet the criteria, why should we exclude them?
There is enough frustration and sometimes anger in the U.K. over Northern Island and the possibility of Scotland leaving the U.K. and that’s where there is a democratically elected government.
With the U.K. having left the EU, how would we feel if the E.U. campaigned for us (U.K.) to be removed from NATO? (Not that this is very likely).
Any military intervention would need to be via the UN, not NATO, the US, or individual EU countries. It would need to be a truly international peace keeping force. There's no chance of this happening though.
As distasteful as it is I think we need to accept that Putin will get at least some of what he wants one way or another. The focus at this point needs to be on damage limitation (in more way than one).
No, a country does not need approval from the UN or NATO in order to assist another country if that country formally requests military assistance. And, by the way, could you please point out to me where Russia got UN permission for its military to enter Ukraine?
I'm not so sure that this isn't already happening. You would've thought that the Russians would have destroyed most/all the RQ-11s but they still seem to have plenty of them.
A sufficient supply of TB-2s as well.
Good, and may supplies of spares, replacement and support continue.
According to the Guardian, the minister for the German Economy has said his country is now prepared for the Russian gas imports to stop. The reason for NATO's non intervention to this point has just fallen away.
Stopping gas exports and letting EU countries freeze represented the most severe avenue of Russian retaliation if NATO directly intervened in the Ukrainian conflict. given the flow of gas supplies has continued throughout, it might have been the "terrible consequences" Putin warned of should w e intervene, typical Putin double-speak which the media credulously assumed to be a thread of atomic war, not that anything Putin says should be paid heed to. Meanwhile, public support for just that, at least in the form of a "no-fly-zone", continues to build.
It would be good if Germany shut down all oil and gas imports from Russia. It’s always a wise move to remove any form of leverage from your enemy.
I personally think we should go further than a no fly zone, but a no fly zone would be a good start. But our governments need to stop sitting on the fence and stop watching (yes, I know they are giving support with supplies) and force Putin to react to the “West”. Rather than us reacting to what Putin does.
